nfoligno

Holy SHIT. In 3 or so months, I only have made the 53 man roster. At that rate, I guess I will be special teams by camp, and a key backup by the end of the year, but not even a platoon starter for another year or two. Likely not a legit starter until 2010 and not a pro bowler until 2011 or so. I don't think so. Now you have done it. I am calling crackerdog, and will be blasting this board w/ fights (I mean threads) 500 posts per. I WILL be a platoon starter by the end of the year, and a legit starter by this time next draft. I hope to be in the Hall of Fame by no later than 2010. In fact, like Chad Johnson, I think I will buy an ugly sports coat, and put on the back, "HOF 2010".

Nice thought, but last I checked, Harris and Hester were still unsigned, and yet we have used up a nice chunk of change. Still have a bit of an issue w/ giving Clark and Brown more money. I never expected us to be major players in FA, and frankly, didn't want to be. However, I did want to get one of the upper tier OL. Would that have cost us? Yes. But I would argue the benefits would have been worth it, even if we had to over pay some.

Just realized that tonight, I made the 53 man roster. Now I have two questions. First, where is my money. If I do not get my guaranteed check in the mail, I will have no alternative other than to hire Rosenarce to represent me. Second, just curious, as it got me wondering, what post numbers equal vaiours levels. After 53 man roster, do you have starter? Then pro bowl? League MVP? Hall of fame? Just curious? Unless Crackerdog returns, I doubt I can make the next level, at least not this month , but I am curious.

Not sure if you are referring to my ripping LT2 or apologizing (seriously, do not answer that question) but thanks. I get sappy sometimes, but I am not sure all posters have an appreciation for the board. Many/most of the posters live in Illinois, and if they want to talk bears, they can go to the local bar. My many other posters like myself who do not live in Illinois, this board remains among our few options to talk shop. When I see the chemisty on this board threatened, I respond as a crack addict who see's someone messing w/ his dealer. Back off Mo-Fo. I need my fix.

Great. Just freaking great. Not only did I get my ass kicked in FF, but I got my ass kicked by some 120 year old man w/ health issues, who works so often he barely has time to turn on the computer. Excuse my while I go shoot msyelf. I hereby give up my FF membership card? I have been disgraced

All issues/complaints should be sent to www.kissmyass.net Sorry, just having some fun

I still think Pix sucks. Of coarse, that might have something to do w/ Pix kicking my ass in FF this year

SON OF A BITCH! You just outed LT2 and I

Your just now thinking that? Crap, I have thought that way since prior to the start of FA. Yes, we signed Booker and lloyd, but regardless, it has not felt like we were players in FA throughout the entire process.

Just did a quick check to verify my memory. I searched 2002 mock drafts. You can argue mock drafts are not true or precise as to a players value, but it is as close as we as fans can get, and what we often use. Freeney went in the following places in these mocks. NFL Draft Countdown - #23 to Oakland Joltcounty - #29 to Chicago (I like that one ) Footballs future - #30 to Pitt CNNSI - #24 to Baltimore All-Pro Scouting - #30 to Pitt Buchsbaum - #29 to Chicago - Man do I miss his work So you see, while Freeney has become elite, he was not considered nearly so in the draft. I remember very much thinking we could trade up a few spots and secure him, but when Indy took him at 11, it shocked everyone. The point was, it wasn't the typical press conference. Dungy literally admitted most would view the pick as a reach, and he then went on to justify it. Not often a GM or coach admits to such. I am not arguing OT is more of a system position than DE. My point is there are other justifications for reaching for a player. Need and team needs of teams immediately behind you would be two. Not a reach? I guess that in itself is a primary disagreement between us. If most everyone else view a guy as a 3rd or 4th, and we take him in the first, regardless how we grade the player, I would call that a major reach. Like I said, it isn't just about how we grade a player, but we have to try and guage how the league views him as well. Like I said, we disagree. My point is the player is still a reach, but may be a justifiable one. Yea, we coveted him, but we picked 18 spots after Dungy. From searching mocks from 2002, I find not one that had Freeney predicted to go in the top 20. I simply do not understand how you can argue that he was a reach. Dungy admitted as much, but simply justified it. I am not arguing we should take Otah or Albert, or whoever, simply because they are the next best OT on our board. My point is, if we have Otah, for example, graded out as a value at 14, but that most others grade him out around 20, he may be a reach, but would be a justifiable one. We grade him high, and even if we felt we "might" be able to get him a bit lower, the risk of losing him is not worth it. I am NOT advocating reaching for an OT just to simply fill a need. But this year, there is a group of OTs that would fill a need, while at the same time, either being solid value, or a minor reach. To me, that is different from simply reaching for a need, regardless of the strength of the position in the draft. I would argue that is closer to what we did in 2002, when we took Columbo. IMHO, we simply too whoever was the next best OT on the board out of need, regardless how we actually graded him. But that is just my opinion. I do not feel it is the same this year, due to the solid crop of OTs in the draft.

Glad were cool. Now lets talk cap:)

LT2, Despite how my last email reads, I am glad you are back, and NOT just for your cap analysis, but for your overall contributions. There is no way for me to say, "I hope you didn't/don't take offense" to what I said. My main issue was, I feared others leaving after year, and I wanted to stop that quick. I do respect you and your opinions, and simply hope we can move forward and work toward making this forum meet everyones expectations. I am sorry if I insulted you, and am very glad you are still around.

But what LT2 pointed out was, right now a big chunk of their salary cap is tied up to Starks, who is counting something like $7m (I think) against their cap since they slapped him w/ the transition tag. In looking at matching a new offer, they would then get to use all that cap money. In talking poison pill, you are usually talking about trying to hit a teams 1st year cap pretty big. Well, they are already counting around $7m against their 2008 cap. How much higher are we willing to go? Say we slap a 1st year, $10m cap hit. That is significant, yet only $3m over what they are already counting. Okay, say Tait leaves after two more seasons. That means you are drafting an OT who is not going to play OT for two years? To me, that is like drafting a RB w/ your first pick, and his not starting the first two years. Most conclude bust status in that case. If we draft Otah or Albert, maybe this works, but I am not as sure Williams can play OG. Not every OT can move inside. I 100% disagree w/ that statement. When you have a top half pick in the 1st round, I think the expectation is that player will be a starter, w/ the exception being QB. Whoever we draft in the 1st, I think the expectation is he starts as a rookie, not that he sucks. I believe he was their OG, then moved to RT later on. That is one reason why I like the idea of signing him. He has proven himself both at OT and OG. Adding him would give us more flexibility in the draft. If we see an OT we like, he can play inside. If we see a guard we like, we play him outside. If we add Starks, we do not have that flexibility.

I think you are confusing issues, and sort of thus proving my point. You are talking about Freeney's accomplishements post-draft. That has nothing to do w/ his draft day value. There is no argument against his greatness. If you went off what he has done in the NFL, he would have been a top 5 value, if not #1 overall. But it doesn't work that way. For example, and this is a more extreme example to prove a point, there has been some recent talk about Matt Forte, RB out of Tulane. If we took him at 14, would you call that a good value, or a reach? Obviously you would call that a reach. If Forte went on though to be the best RB in this draft, would that change whether he was a reach or not? I would argue he surpassed the value placed on him on draft day, but that would not change whether or not he was a draft day reach. Any GM will talk about value. In the draft, it isn't solely about drafting players you want, but drafting them where you feel they are a solid value, and before another team takes him. It's a bit of a chess game. We may like Forte, but does that mean we take him #1? No. The game is trying to figure out his value, not only in our eyes, but in the other 31 teams. Back to Freeney. That year, Dungy basically admitted in a post draft press conference he reached for Freeney. I remember it so well because I never heard a coach or GM talk so open about a topic like this. He said (a) there was no way Freeney would be available to them in when their 2nd pick came around ( they felt Freeney, especially for their system, would be a pure stud, and that while his draft day value may be lower, Dungy was not willing to risk trading down as another team could unexpectedly take him or trade up in front of Indy. So while he may be considered a reach by some, Dungy felt Freeney's play would make fans quickly forget such things. That is my argument. Sometimes a player may be a reach, but at the same time, sometimes you can justify the reach. I argue similar in the case of OL this year. Some feel Otah or Albert would constitute a reach for us, but my point is that, like w/ Freeney, there is a very reach chance that if we trade down, we will not have a shot at either, and if we grade one or both high enough, the slight reach can be justified.

This will be controversal, and I will probably come off as an ass, but I feel it necessary to speak up before other old posters get disenfranchised and take off. This is my undestanding of some of what went down. Maybe someone like Pix can throw in on this. Lt2 had some issues w/ how some things were moderated, and I guess he sent an email to the moderators. He did not get an immediate response, and the lack of communication had him stewing over the situation to the point he said F it, and asked for his salary cap info to be removed. Later, a poll was created asking how posters wanted the forum to be moderated or set up, but Lt2 essentially said too little, too late. He posted a fairly scathing comments attacking the moderators for not replying to him soon enough. Pix, as a moderator, posted a reply talking about how busy his schedule was, and apologizing for not replying sooner. Lt2 then said he was upset w/ the other moderators. Anyway, there was a lot of drama, but to be frank, I lost a bit of respect for LT2 over this crap. He has always been a great poster, but instead of simply working w/ moderators to solve concerns and issues, he got pissy and decided this board, and our community wasn't worth the fight. I recall his asking me in an email if it wasn't w/in his rights to ask for his cap stuff to be removed. To be honest, I felt like he was acting like that little boy who got upset, and decided to go home, taking his ball w/ him. Yea, he did a ton of work on the cap, and gets MAJOR props for that, but his hissy fit taking the cap stuff w/ him was pretty sad IMHO. In doing so, he did not only say F U to the moderators, but essently told me that he doesn't give a shit about the rest of us who post here. It's all about him. Like I said, I am going to come off as an ass here, I am sure. The only ones who are not going to rip me for this are posters previously from this board. But I think LT2s actions need to be pointed out before others decide to follow his lead. I am not saying moderators were perfect. But to have read all the posts, the arrogance was shocking. And who does taking his cap stuff hurt? Think about that for a minute. Everyone is talking about how much they like LT2, but in that action, he said he didn't give a shit about the rest of the board. I am sorry if there is simply so much more to this than I realize, but I would hate to lose this community we have put together. For years I have spoken w/ you guys, and when I read about the downfall of the old board, I was worried I would lose that community. We found a new board, and while not perfect, IMHO is not so bad that is warrants simply taking off. Moderators seem open to working w/ us to adapt and change, and I think this place is worth working through issues. In other words, I would rather work through our problems than leave, and take my ball w/ me.

Signing Starks may not be very easy anymore. LT2 and I talked about this quite a bit. Pitt has a ton of cap room, similar to us, so simply throwing him a poison pill deal may not be as doable as we would like, particularly as we have used some cap space already to re-sign some players, and want to keep more space to look at extending several other players. From everything I have heard, there is a reason no one has shown interest in Starks. The belief around the league is Pitt slapped him w/ the transition tag simply to allow the league to set the market, and thus the price, for him. They intend to match any offer (reasonable) made to him, and thus teams feel he is a waste of time. The other issue I have, and have had, w/ signing Starks is, it gives up on the idea of getting a LT in the draft. Clady is likely out of our reach, but Williams may not. If we draft Starks, we would most likely be passing on OT, and thus, killing out chance to find that LT upgrade we want so badly. The one way I would be for signing Starks would be if we could/would draft Albert in the draft. Albert is a guy who can start immediately at OG, but w/ the potential of moving to LT in the NFL. So in a year or two, we could look at moving him outside to replace Tait. What I would rather do, though we won't, is sign the OG cut by SD. Then we would only be short an OT, which we grab in the draft.

My point is, this is considered a weak year for QB, and I question what his Broham's value would be in a bette QB year. This is considered a HUGE year for OTs. Otah is arguably ranked #4, but again, it is an issue of being such a great OT crop. I have said this before, but I really do not know much about Broham. What bothers me is, all the talk about the weak QB crop, and Broham is, in a weak year, still considered questionable, mid to late 1st round pick. Otah is the 4th rated OT, but that is in a great OT year, and in other years, he may well have been the #2 ranked OT.

Yes, I did say that if our scouts love Otah, to simply take him. But again, my point is this is considered an elite year in terms of OTs. I have read the near opposite w/ regard to QB. I'll be honest. I have not watched much of Broham, and only go off report. From what I have read though, he is considered the #2 QB (which is even questioned by some) and a 1st round grade due in largue part to the weak QB class. If this were a better QB class, many I have read question whether he would still be considered a 1st round pick. That has nothing to do w/ team need, but w/ talent pool at the position. If this were last year, I think Broham would have been considered the 3rd or even 4th best QB, and he would have been a 2nd round pick. The year before, 4th best, and again, likely a 2nd round pick. Year before that, another weak QB crop, maybe a late 1st. So my issue is taking a QB in a year, due to need, considered weak at QB v taking an OT, another need, in a year considered elite at OT.

First, let me just say thank you. W/ Crackdog pulling a hoodini, my drawn out debates have been limited. I've been in the need for a good fight:) Bailey/Woodson are great examples. They are among the best, if not the best, yet at the same time, QBs do not fear them the way QBs fears elite CBs of old, at least IMHO. The term "shut down corner" was given for a reason. You put him on a corner back, and he flat out shut down the WR he played. Today, you simply do not have that. Even the elite corner like Bailey gets both attacked and beat. For example, Bailey was beating by a rookie, Bowe, for 105 yards on 9 catches. IMHO, in the old rules, that would not have happened. There were other games where Bailey was beat as well. This was just an example. I have heard many ex-NFL guys, including Deion Sanders, often talk about this. You simply do not have shut down corners anymore. You have great corners, but rules no longer allow for that shut down aspect. I might agree w/ you, but due to watching games, I can't. In theory, I agree that in a typical cover two or zone, your CBs presses at the LOS, works the WR for the first 20 or so yards, then releases to the Safety. You mention how often our CBs do not press. I agree, and would go one further. I swear our corners nearly NEVER press. Yet plenty often I watch our corner play off the LOS, and still release their man to the safety. It is one of the reason why our safeties are so often exposes. In theory, your CB presses, which gives the Safety the extra time to see the play, and decide where to run. But our corners do not press, and the safety often is exposed as the WR runs right past the CB and the safety doesn't have time to get over. You mention the script in a cover 2 is zone? Well, after letting Rivera go, all sources (including Lovie) said we would play more cover 2. Yet, like you said, our corners simply do not press. While I agree w/ you in theory, I simply do not agree that we play as much man as you believe, and do not believe whether our corners press or not is indicative, as our corners never seem to press, yet we know we do in fact play a lot of cover two. Hey, that is not fair. I was comparing a current player w/ a current player. In the Hampton scenario, I too would take him over Urlacher. I did however state I would take Singletary over Hampton. As awesome as Hampton was, I simply feel Singletary was not only awesome as well, but far and away the one who made the defense work as well as it did. Again, this goes beyond the original point. The question was whether Freeney was w/o question the best defensive player to come out of that draft. I made the point Peppers and Ed Reed would both have very legit arguments for themselves, and still believe that to be true. I personally feel it was a tad more than that. As I recall, we actually did pressure McNabb, but he was sick in his ability to avoid the rush. I recall too well both our DL, and our LBs, putting McNabb on the move, but breaking their ankles trying to stick w/ him. We have a much, much better pass rushing DL today than in 2001. I think you would easily agree w/ that. IMHO, our DL today would not have been able to stop McNabb on that day. And once again, w/ that said, I again have to point this out. I have said, repeatedly, that I value the DE and DT above the rest. My point is simply that some players come along who are as valuable to the D as a great pass rusher, and believe Ed Reed was every bit as valuable as Freeney.

I credit co-workers who show up on weekends. You say he should be there, but this is the offseason, and not even an OTA. This is not showing up for another day at the office. This is showing up voluntarily, which I would argue is far more like coming in on weekends. Last year (I think it was last year) I remember reading articles about how Rex was a regular at Halas, and fans made a huge deal about the committment he showed. Most players are at home, and the closest thing they get to football right now is on the playstation. If a player is a "regular at Halas" right now, sorry, but that does show a level of committment that I do believe warrants some credit. Anyway, you really didn't answer the key question. You joke how he is watching babylon and smoking doobies, and then go on to say while he may be rehabbing, you would have to see it to believe it. But you avoid the question. If he is a regular at halas, other than rehab and/or working out, what could he be doing? All jokes aside, and I am sure we can think of plenty (Like he is picking up yet another paycheck he did nothing to earn:)) what else could he be doing there?

I have no argument on the importance of our getting a QB. The only issue I have is whether there is a good enough QB worth our 14th pick. By all accounts, this is not a very good QB class. I read how it is fairly deep, in that there are a lot of QBs who could be drafted, but in talking 1st round value QBs, it doesn't look great. Ryan is considered the best, and is called a top 5 pick, but how much of that has to do w/ it being a weak class, as opposed to simply his being that good? In a stronger QB class, I wonder where Ryan or Broham would rank? If this was 2007, would Ryan be considered a top 5 pick or would he more likely fall like Quinn. And if Ryan is questioned to fall, would Broham even be a 1st round pick. No argument QB is a need. I would not even argue when you say it is our top need. But sometimes need doesn't mesh w/ the draft. For example, if safety were our top need, this would not be a very good draft for us. Would that mean we draft safety anyway. Yea, Safety and QB are totally different, but my point is, I do not think you can draft solely on need. OT is a top tier need. I do not believe you disagree w/ this. But unlike QB, OT is also considered one of the best positions in the draft. Not only that, but this is considered one of the best groups seen in years. It just seems more logical to me to get one of the better/best OTs from a class considered to be one of the best in years, rather than grab a QB in a year considered weak for QBs. More and more, I wonder if our best choice would not be to draft at 14, then trade up into the back end of the 1st round to get our QB. Like you said, few teams after us are looking at QB. So why not try to do like Cle, and move up from our 2nd pick. Get an OT, then a QB for him to block.

Reasons why this piece loses credibility in my eyes. 1. "With the Bears being more tight-lipped than ever regarding injury information, it’s hard to get an exact gauge on Benson’s ongoing rehab." Come on. This is the status quo for our coaches. I think Lovie follows Billicks philosophy on talking about injuries. Whether it is about Urlacher, Harris or whoever, our staff simply does not talk about players injuries, which drives the media nuts, and leads to some reporting that is based on suspicion absent explanation. 2. "Daily team observers tell us Benson has been a regular at Halas Hall this offseason, but nobody has seen him actually working out." Okay. What exactly is Benson doing at Halas Hall on a regular basis if not working out? Watching game film? Who buys that? If he is a regular at Halas, I think the likely reason is he is working out and rehabbing. I am not sure what other reasons he would have to be a regular at Halas Hall. Also, should this not be considered a positive for Bear fans. I mean, w/ all the talk about Benson's weight and playing shape at camp last year, should it not be good news if he is now a regular at Halas Hall? 3. " However, if Arkansas hotshot Darren McFadden somehow falls through the cracks in the first round of the draft and is still available at No. 14 — a scenario our draft insiders believe is entirely possible —" Okay, seriously now. Who the hell thinks McFadden will fall to 14. Prior to the combine, some started to throw this out there, but once he ran a 4.33/40, those thoughts were put to rest. The fact their sources think McFadden falls to 14 has me questioning their whole piece. I am not saying there is no chance we Benson's injury isn't more serious, or that we avoid RB in the 1st. What I am saying is this piece has some very questionable information in it that makes me question the entire thing.

One, could they not spread that cap hit out over 2 years. I would mention June 1st cut date, but I think new rules allow you to cut a player (or two) prior to June, but w/ the same effect spreading out the cap hit. $4m this year and next is still tough to choke down, but if the player is going to hurt your team more than help.... Two, to further the previous point, CJ is throwing out talk that dwarfs anything Briggs previously said. He is starting to hit levels that would make Terrell Owens look like a choir boy. He has already said he will not attend workouts, and you have to wonder where it ends. If all he is going to do is create problems, cap hits may not matter so much. What may be more important is simply getting rid of a player like that. Three, if it is decided he has to go, it would be far better to do it sooner rather than later, as you can land a pick in what is considered a very good draft. I have no idea what Cincy will do, but you have to wonder if they are going to keep around a player that gets into fights w/ the coaches, calls out players, shreds the team and says it can't win, says he doesn't want to be w/ them, and goes city to city telling everyone that will listen he would rather play for them than the team that drafted him. I remember when Angelo came in and soon after cut Cade. We took a cap hit, though nothing as extreme as w/ CJ, but then again, Cade's "issues" were not nearly as extreme as w/ CJs either. Sometimes you simply have to cut bait. Minus the cap hit, Atlanta just dealt w/ a similar situation in Hall.

In terms of CBs, we simply disagree. I will agree it is more important today to have a cover corner v a physical corner. At the same time, even cover corners touched the WRs and fought for position. W/ the rules as they are today, there is an absolute advantage to the WR, which already had the advantage going in as they knew the play/route. There was a time you had true shut down corners. I simply do not believe you have that anymore. Even Champ Bailey, considered the elite among corners, gets beat far more often than most realize, as the disadvantage put on corners makes it near impossible to shut down a WR like in days of old. As to ours, again, we simply disagree. I would argue we play far more of a zone, or over the top scheme than man to man. Does that mean we never play man? No. For example, I would point to last year. In our playoff game against NO, it was widely reported how Rivera changed to a man coverage scheme, which totally threw NO off whack. Why did that throw them off? Because while we might have used man at times, it was not our base coverage. Zone is our base coverage. You mention Hampton and Dent. If I could pull one player from that team, no question in my mind it would have been Singletary. Even Ryan used to talk about how the reason his 46 was so successful was Singletary. He was the one calling the offensive plays before the snap, and telling our guys where to line up. We had an all-pro DL, but IMHO, that defense was what it was because of our Mike, more than due to the DL. In general though, we are not in disagreement. I have placed DE as the #1 position on the D, followed by DT. But I would also say there are special players at other positions who can easily compare in worth to even the best DEs. Ed Reed is one of those special players. Reed is elite among defensive players, not just safeties, and his defensive MVP award is evidence. If Urlacher and Freeney were drafted in the same year, which would be considered the better pick? I would say Urlacher. Freeney is an awesome player, and one I wanted to draft. I was high on Freeney when many didnt' know who the hell he was, or thought he would be a reach for us. He is one of, if not the, best pass rusher in the NFL, and would make Dent proud the way he slaps the ball out of the QBs hands. At the same time, he is not strong v the run. Not like he is a situational pass rusher, but I think a DE like Strahan is superior (maybe not today). The original point was simply that, as great as Freeney is, I am not sure he is the unquestioned best defensive player from that draft, as I think Reed and Pepper could both provide an argument. Looking at the first 5 years for Peppers and Freeney.... Peppers 255 tackles and 53.5 sacks. Freeney 178 tackles and 56.5 sacks. So Freeney had 3 more sacks but 77 fewer tackles. Yea, I would say you can make a case for Peppers.

For me, I put QB at the top, and frankly, look at the value of a QB for the team as nearly on a different level. Beyond the QB, it is a touch hard, as it depends on scheme. For example, in a cover two, the CB does not have to play man-to-man, and thus you do not need a champ baily. In a 3-4, you do not need elite pass rushers on the DL, but the level of LBs you need goes up. If you get away from scheme a bit though... I would put the DE and then DT as the 1-2 important positions on the defense. MLB would probably be next. I do not rate the secondary the way I used to. There is no longer any such thing as a shut down corner. The rules of the league have simply weakened that position. Now, the best way to stop elite WRs is not w/ an elite CB, but w/ the pass rush.